<p>does anyone plan on joining a sorority or fraternity or know of any good ones at uchi?</p>
<p>I hear the sororities aren't really worth joining.</p>
<p>I'm going to have to agree with asiaknight.</p>
<p>keep an open mind, I'm sure there are benefits to going greek.</p>
<p>Here's a good article for you. :)</p>
<p>Systematic sisterhood promotes intolerance
GREEK: Former membership in sorority involved ridicule, rating of prospective friends</p>
<p>By Kirra Steel</p>
<p>I received an e-mail from a friend telling me that I was in a photograph used in a Go Greek supplement of the Daily Bruin's back to school issue (The Greek Guide, Fall 2000). We laughed at the irony and stupidity that a picture with a deactivated member of a sorority was used in an ad to promote joining the Greek system at UCLA.</p>
<p>But as I rode the train home from work I stopped laughing. Actually, I felt sick to my stomach. My face was being used (without my permission) to promote a system I find morally reprehensible, elitist and divisive. My face, my picture, my identity, was being associated with a group that does not personify me. I managed my senior year to escape my sorority (many do not) and be my true self. You may be thinking, "C'mon. There are bigger problems than going Greek."</p>
<p>What people fail to see is that sororities and fraternities at UCLA are really a part of the same institutions and mind-sets that promote racism, hate and social inequity throughout the country. The Greek system fundamentally is an elitist institution because it does not let everyone join, even though they say they are so diverse, racially harmonious and willing to give financial support to the indigent who want to join.</p>
<p>While the Greek system promotes the magic spark of "unity," how it selects its members goes to show how exclusionary it is. They claim there is a house for everyone. But what if you are, according to their standards, not "everyone" and perceived to be too fat, ugly or poor? The Greeks will argue these are not the reasons they don't let people in; rejection is due to "personality conflicts." Let me take you into rush, and you can decide for yourself if potential members are being judged and selected for their "personalities."</p>
<p>After each "party," we sorority girls frantically grabbed our pens and marked little slips of paper, dutifully ranking the rushee we just talked to. On a scale of one to five, we circled the numbers we felt described her hair, nails, outfit, skin, makeup, ethnicity, height and (the big one) weight. Afterward, we gave an overall score of the girl from one to five.</p>
<p>Once we signed our names on the sheets, we tallied up all of the rushee's scores and placed them on a nice graph for reference when we were voting who should be dropped. This is how we choose our "new friends."</p>
<p>Our new friends are not even people, though, just brief impressions and numbers all calculated to hopefully create a large pledge class. Many ignored the reason why our advisors collected and destroyed these score sheets and our rush handbooks. If anyone found these sheets or the detailed descriptions of how we pick members, they would be horrified and sue the sorority. No paper evidence remained of the blatant discrimination and cruelty that occur during the member selection process.</p>
<p>Why are rush and the selection process secret? Why were we subtly threatened and told never to repeat what was said in these meetings? Because it is so blatantly wrong and they know there would be hell to pay if it got out. No one ever dared challenge this rule; I do not know exactly what would have happened if someone did. But severe consequences were hinted at. They have you so brainwashed that you begin to question your own beliefs and morals to the point that you find it okay to call someone horrible.</p>
<p>The cruelty and hate live on, though, in my conscience, memory and heart. My favorite sorority activity that I am proud to have taken part in was when we spoke about and secretly voted on the rushees. We had to give a positive description ("Oh my gawd she is so cute, loves to party and super-sweet!") and a negative description.</p>
<p>Some of my favorite "negatives" are "We need to get rid of her because she will scare other girls away if she is seen on our porch," and "I will die and then deactivate if I see her on campus in my letters!" There were much worse negative descriptions and I still have to deal with the guilt of saying such horrible things about young women I barely knew.</p>
<p>One member selection meeting I will never forget coincided with the time I brought my friend, who I will call "Gloria," to dinner at the house. Little did I know, this was an open rush ploy to try and recruit new members. I was proud that my sorority sisters were known as the "nice girls" on the row and I wanted to disprove Gloria's skepticism.</p>
<p>Gloria was working, on scholarship, active in our floor government and her church group, and seemed to know everyone on campus. She had a life already and had no interest in joining.</p>
<p>It was lots of fun until we went to a meeting where it was announced that Gloria was going to be evaluated for membership. Two of my "sisters" proceeded to give negative descriptions so awful I had to leave the room. Gloria was called "fat, dumpy, disgusting" and they felt they would die if they saw her in our sorority letters. These hateful words are still with me, but what haunts me the most is that I did not deactivate right then. No, I went on to become vice president of the sorority and obviously I am still used to this day as a poster-child for the Greek system.</p>
<p>How did they select members in other houses that were more selective and "better" than my sorority? You see, "diversity" in other houses means you have a brunette in your pledge class. Gloria did not even want to join and even if she did, where would she get the money? The Greek system likes to talk about how they offer financial assistance to members, but as a former pledge educator, I saw girls depledge because no one offered them monetary aid.</p>
<p>So why call Gloria fat and ugly for no reason? Simple. Someone who does not look exactly like them, have the same skin color, financial status or clothes threatens the Greek system. I guess Gloria and 90 percent of UCLA students do not have the right "personalities." But it doesn't matter if you do fit the physical mold of a sorority girl, because if you are different in any way, you will be ostracized. This one story only begins to explain why I left the Greek system.</p>
<p>When faced with what I would do in my last year at UCLA and for the rest of my life, I decided to be true to my soul that believes "all men are created equal" and that it is wrong to judge people and to choose my "friends"on qualities such as looks, skin color and family background, physical health all of the things that people can't control just to make me feel better about myself. I can control how I act toward other people and how I think.</p>
<p>I have no hard feelings for my "ex-sisters," and I wish them all the luck with fall rush because hey, sometimes out of darkness you get real "Disneyland fireworks" and light.</p>
<p>Out of my mistakes I have become a stronger and better person. To all of you new freshman or lost Bruins who need someone to plan the party for you (if you join you will soon be doing all the work), need friends or a dose of self-confidence, take some advice from the reluctant poster child of the Greek system.</p>
<p>Don't let your years at UCLA be filled with regret and shame by going Greek. Ask yourself, "Do I and can I be a part of a system that promotes such backward values and elitist attitudes?"</p>
<p>Do not wait until senior year to raise these crucial questions. It is not worth it to sacrifice your Bruin pride and human compassion to an organization that violates the very essence of our common humanity. Go to 'SC if you really want to be a frat boy or sorority girl. You are a Bruin and way too smart!</p>
<p>Heh, that's how I imagine the college application process to be.</p>
<p>Lol, that's exactly what I was about to say. Have you looked at some of the Ivy decisions threads? In some schools, I've seen 1200-1350 Hispanic females accepted and 1550-1600 Asian males rejected. (It's not just the numbers, but that's the easiest way to describe it.) I always thought affirmative action was supposed to be comparing two people of 1400 level stats, ECs, essays, etc.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is what we call "reverse racism", Christine123. As a society, we have generally accepted it is not okay to be racist against blacks, Mexicans, American Indians, and Arabs. This is good - racism is the lowest form of collectivism. But somehow it's now okay to be racist against whites and to a lesser extent, Asians. This is called affirmative action.</p>
<p>I know. That was the point I was making. And I think affirmative action is more racist against Asians, esp. at tech schools, etc.</p>
<p>More racist against Asians than against whites? I don't think so - I think it's equally racist/discriminatory against both.</p>
<p>again, i laugh... in sadness...</p>
<p>Colleges go for "diversity" even though many of the "under-represented minorities" taht get into the ivies are richer then the asians who get rejected. Instead of basing it on race, colleges should base it on economic circumstances.</p>
<p>So rich people get declined with better test scores because they're rich? Nah, replacing discrimination with discrimination isn't my thing.</p>
<p>Well rich people have more benefits. THey can afford SAT prep classes. They don't have to worry about going hungry. They live in good neighborhoods without gang violence or drugs or crime or rape. Their parents can take time to care about their grades. </p>
<p>Poor people can't afford SAT classes, go to bad public schools, don't have families that have the resources to go to private schools, families can't take time to read to kids or talk to teachers. They constantly have bad influences on them.</p>
<p>You can argue any group should be admitted over any group due to any subjective reason. Single parents, ethnicity, family member in jail, mom's perfume caused allergic reaction during application period, whatever - it's still subjective arbitrary discrimination. How about just no discrimination and we admit based on the application? Private institutions can do what they want, but if we're going to have public universities, they should not discriminate for the benefit of one group of taxpayers against another group of taxpayers.</p>
<p>Economics is a better alternative compared to race. However, I don't know how it should come into play with admissions.
I know what you mean about the irony of diversity and affirmative action. All of the minorities I know applying to top colleges are very wealthy and privileged...and very few of the kids in the inner-city schools in my city go to college, period.</p>
<p>Well you can say that U of california system of schools is doing that. And colleges do take into account nearly every factor you mentioned above and one can always explain reasoning for things in application. Also there are mroe worse forms of discrimination than others, and discriminating by race is a huge taboo in american culture, so it has been natural for it to be ever present in the college application process. I'm not really happy about it either since I'm on the wrong end of affirmative action. But the US Constituion provides for the representation of the minority voice in a sea of the majority, which would explain when the supreme court got their idea for affirmative action from in the Bakke case. </p>
<p>But colleges don't take into account monetary needs at all, their "need-blind" policies do discriminate against poor white and asian kids because admissions officers don't see in tha applications that they are just as abad off as their black and hispanic counterparts. Thus, instead of trying to reform the system, little changes can be made so that it is more fair, even though it can never be totally fair. </p>
<p>And by your account, just basing everything on test scores is jsut as bad due to the inherent bias in the SAT and ACT which measures how well one has prepared for a test. Also, as you have said, people can have bad days, and that definitely can have detrimental affects to even the smartest people on SAT test days. No matter what, the system will always be discriminatory against some people. Apparently the white kids who, on average, are better off than their minority counterparts are just pouting over having to work harder in the name of "discrimination."</p>
<p>IMO, affirmative action makes black and Hispanic students be defined only by their race. If it didn't exist, there would be a higher level of respect all around for black and Hispanic university students.</p>
<p>Of course, I'm not arguing for affirmative action, I despise just as much as any white or asian person, but colleges need more people with diverse economic backgrounds. But colleges have reasons for affirmative action because it promotes diversity, is good for PR, and helps to raise money and attracts more people because it's diverse. I'm pretty sure many kids would rather go to a school with a group of different types of kids rather than one witha homogenious student body, I know I would and that is one of teh draws of Chicago.</p>
<p>part of the uofc charm is the lack of greeks....</p>
<p>I admit there are some inherent flaws in any admissions system that takes race into account. However, for most of this century, African Americans have been discriminated against in higher education, and regardless of their economic status have not been allowed the same educational opportunities that people of other races have. Just think how recently (the 60s!) discrimination against African Americans was a social norm. Even today, in the most elite high schools, African Americans are hugely underrepresented. In my own school, which is considered quite diverse (largely Asian and Eastern European immigrants) we have less than 1 percent African American students. This injustice must be somehow righted, and if it means a system slanted slightly in the favor of these underrepresented students, in order to level the playing field in the longterm, than so be it. Not only is it beneficial the students helped directly but it is also helpful to the student body as a whole to see an increase in underrepresented minorities (a university is after all supposed to contain both unity and diversity). Now I am by no way advocating a "quota" but I certainly believe it's only right to take into account if a student is of a race that is underrepresented in this university. I really don't see how this system can be compared to the system of sororities shown in that article. On one hand, you have an exlusionary system designed to limit diversity and maintain a homogenous body, while on the other you have a system designed to somehow balance what is an incredible imbalance and to create a richer environment. I am NOT saying the system is perfect, but we must recognize that an injustice exists and ignoring it is not going to make it go away. </p>
<p>Alright, I'm prepared for the onslaught of criticism for what I just said (Well, wrote), but be gentle! Let's avoid an on set of mob mentally in attacking (what seems to be) the sole dissident.</p>